click to show more information

click to hide/show information About this Show

Book TV

Diana Furchtgott-Roth Education. (2012) Book TV at FreedomFest Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 'How Obama's Gender Policies Undermine America,' and 'Women's Figures.' New.

NETWORK

DURATION
00:15:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 91 (627 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

America 11, Diana Furchtgott-roth 4, Obama 3, Us 2, Steven Johnson 1, Goalpost 1, Exxon Mobil 1, Ba 1, George W. Bush 1, Kagan 1, Washington 1, Goldman Sachs 1, The Manhattan 1, Sotomayor 1, Jerry Condoleezza 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Book TV    Diana Furchtgott-Roth  Education.  (2012) Book TV at  
   FreedomFest Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 'How Obama's Gender Policies...  

    September 30, 2012
    1:00 - 1:15pm EDT  

1:00pm
clippings of all these other ideas. they are intellectual presence there and intellectual self was formed by this constant re-reading and reimagining other people's ideas. >> steven johnson is our guest next sunday on in death. he is looking at computer networking and politics. live at noon eastern on c-span2. >> host: joining us now is author diana furchtgott-roth and she has, in fact, several new books coming out in the summer of 2012. this is a small little book put out by encounter. "how obama's gender policies undermine america" first of all, diana furchtgott-roth, what is
1:01pm
this supposed to represent. >> guest: is a short and easily red booklet. this one is about gender policy. >> host: another new book put out by american enterprise institute is "women's figures". >> guest: that is meant for the playboy crowd. [laughter] >> host: this is the book "women's figures: an illustrated guide to the economic progress of women in america." i think some of the ideas are the same in both of these. which is compared with men, women in 21st century america live five years longer, facing unemployment rates that are significantly lower, are awarded a larger share of high school diplomas, bas and a maze, and face lower rates of
1:02pm
incarceration, alcoholism and drug abuse. in other words, contrary to what feminist lobbies would have congress believed, girls and women are doing very well. >> guest: that is correct. they have fewer of us in jail, they earn more ba's and ma's. we don't need affirmative action or special programs for women. >> host: when they say that women make 77% on average what of what men make, what is your reaction to. >> guest: if you look at supermarket cashiers, a man and a woman who were just higher, david about the same. first-year associates and law firms make about the same. but women on average choose to
1:03pm
work fewer hours than men, even when they work full-time. full-time is anything about 35 hours a week. women work about 12% fewer hours. about 25% work in and out of the workforce as they have children. that, on average, would beat the average earnings. but it doesn't mean that they are discriminated against or that if you take two women and two men in the same job, they don't match up. >> host: what is the paycheck fairness act? >> guest: the paycheck fairness act failed. it also failed when there was a democratic house, senate, and president. barack obama himself said that it would require us to report to the government, the women they
1:04pm
have on the payroll, the men they have on the payroll, how much they paid those groups, and that is an attempt of the government to try to equalize pay between groups of women and groups of men. rather than, as well all holds right now, men and women in comparable jobs in the same jobs. so what they are trying to do is have people pay for equal work, not equal pay to equal work, which is very different things. there are no reasons why groups of women and men in the same firm should be paid to the same level if they have very different different jobs. you cannot get me to do will work. you have to pay people a lot of risk their lives during that kind of work. exxon mobil also has a group of women in communications systems, job publications -- there's no reason these two groups should necessarily be paid the same. but the paycheck fairness act would be moving toward requiring men and women be paid the same,
1:05pm
even if they are in very different jobs. that is not paycheck fairness. that is communism. >> host: you also wrote "women's figures: an illustrated guide to the economic progress of women in america." was there a time when women were treated unfairly in the workforce? >> guest: there certainly were. it was time in the 1950s and 60s. you can see just advertised that one salary for man and another gallery for women. the original feminists were congratulated on ending that. as many of your listeners know, there were times when women cannot even grow. there were times when women, when they got pregnant were fired from their jobs. feminists had to be congratulated for having moved the goalpost and changed all that, change the culture in the workplace. but now, feminists want to move the goalposts further and say that there is discrimination if
1:06pm
there is no equal outcome. discrimination at 50% of ceos are not women. there is even discrimination and construction -- 50% of women being construction workers. men and women make different choices in the work sections. they make different choices in education. you see one young man majoring in math and science. one young women majoring in, actually gender studies, literature, fields that are not going to pay as well as math and science. when they enter the workplace, you see more women going into nonprofits and working shorter hours and you see more men in investment banks and computer science. there isn't any reason that these two groups should be paid the same if they make different choices. now, a man and then the woman who start off at goldman sachs, they start out the same, they
1:07pm
should be paid the same, but if they are not, there are avenues to dispute. that is the difference. >> host: what you think about the white house council on women and girls? >> guest: i think they need to have a council on men and boys. you can see the young men have lower earnings than young women. if you look at single men and single women in urban areas, the single men have lower earnings. you can see that their are far higher rates of voice dropping out of high school than girls. boys are getting less education now than girls. if the white house wants to have a council on women and girls, that's fine, as long as they have one on men and boys, too. the white house is not talking about expanding title ix to math and science. title ix on college campuses applies to sports. under title ix, colleges have to
1:08pm
have the same number of men and women in proportion to their enrollment. it is 55% of their enrollment, 55% of the college sports have to go to women. they are talking about extending math and science. so that at 55%, again, campuses who are women, they would have 55% of science, which the white house can easily do, because title ix applies to all fields of education. this would be disastrous for women and for america's competitiveness, because it would mean that some young men would not be able to major in science and some young women might be pressured to major in science when they did not want to do that. >> host: diana furchtgott-roth is a fellow at the manhattan institute, she sure is a great
1:09pm
lady and served as chief economist at the department from 2003 up until 2005. are you supportive of title ix when it comes to the role of supports? we just celebrated the role of the 40th anniversary? >> guest: when the courts were discussing title ix, one of the messages that colleges could comply with with title ix was having as many fulfilling the desires of the different groups. in other words, if they were leaning to the requests of women, then that was fine. but the way is that it has to be proportional. they are not supportive of title ix is a closed system. the fact is there are more young men who want to play college sports than young women. there was an article in "the new
1:10pm
york times" about how these colleges are playing games with numbers. a woman can be on two teams and accounts for two people where they can sign up to play and she can jump out and still be officially listed on the team. the problem is that young americans are losing valuable scholarships. colleges are having to cut back on men's teams. there aren't enough women who want to play college sports. that is a tragedy, because the real problem is not the advancement of women, but the advancement of one group of men. >> host: when you hear the political phrase, war on women, what are your thoughts? >> guest: the war on women is a
1:11pm
matter of something that is coming up right now, women who want contraceptives contraceptives, we have programs so they can get them. that the real war on women is that those aged 16 and over to have unemployment be in great numbers, the unemployment rate at a .2%, the fact that our economy is just growing at 1.9% -- the real war on women is that they can't get jobs and that their spouses and family members can't get jobs and they are suffering from high gas prices, higher health insurance premiums, and they cannot find ways to advance economically.
1:12pm
>> host: "how obama's gender policies undermine america" is a book by diana furchtgott-roth. she writes about the two worlds. in the world, women are more likely than men to succeed. women, on average, do better in school and work and life. they try him in everyday america. the other is a distortion constructed by radical premises and 10 feminists and washington policies. these politics are a career by telling people they are defeated. >> guest: yes, that's correct. by saying that women have to earn the same as men, it is imputed digital lifestyle choice. the feminists say that that is not sufficient. that by doing that, women are earning less than men in making a poorer lifestyle choice. just think, the last supreme
1:13pm
court justices who were nominated, the last three women supreme court justices who were nominated, justice sotomayor and justice kagan and george w. bush's white house counsel, those three don't have any children. they have devoted themselves time to their careers. that's wonderful for those who want to do it. secretary chao doesn't have children. doctor jerry condoleezza rice doesn't have children. women who want to have a more sensible lifestyle choice, those who want to develop less time to their work and to their family, that is a goal, too. it should not be to make 100% of what men make. it should be to have a satisfying career. there is such a great variety of jobs available. flexible jobs, full-time jobs, they can work 60 or 80 hours a
1:14pm
week and make an investment on wall street. women have all these choices. the ones who choose more sensible jobs with lower incomes should not be put down. they should not be made to feel as if they are making a valid choice. >> host: we are speaking with diana furchtgott-roth, author of "how obama's gender policies undermine america" and "women's figures: an illustrated guide to the economic progress of women in america." you have another book coming out. what is that called? >> guest: how green jobs damage america's economy. it is about alternative energy and imposing costs on america's economies. costs that opponents are not acknowledging.